Scientists love to criticize the mistakes of other scientists. If the
leaked emails provided evidence of a flaw in the scientific
conclusions of the Climate Research Unit, many scientists in the field
would leap on it and reject those conclusions. But
that is not
happening. Meanwhile, many effects of global warming have been
observed all around the Earth, by many independent groups of
observers. So I think there is no flaw; the denialists are blowing a
lot of smoke so they can claim there must be a fire.

If the CRU's scientific conclusions are not wrong, is anything wrong?

Monbiot cites one criticism of the Climate Research Unit scientists
which, if substantiated, is grave. If they deleted data to thwart
freedom-of-information requests, that was real wrongdoing.
Withholding data is also harmful to science. They should publish
their data so other scientists can study it.

However, to criticize Phil Jones for writing words that have been spun
to look bad is treating appearance as substance. Jones tried to block
two papers from publication in a refereed journal; that could be wrong
or it could be justified. If he did so because they were lousy
papers, that was proper.

It might have been better tactically for Jones to use different words
to say what he was doing. However, he is a scientist, not a PR
tactician. He failed to consider that his email might be leaked. In
hindsight we see that was possible, but; he did not have the advantage
of hindsight. That is not culpable.

To condemn the university for not facing the attacks better and sooner
is unfair too. Hardly anyone is an expert in facing a witch hunt.
The only useful thing to do is to help others prepare for future
right-wing witch hunts.

Monbiot's final conclusion is the deepest mistake: to endorse the
double standard that the denialist seek to impose. They would like to
be able to get away with outright fabrications and irrationality,
while holding those who report on global warming to the strictest
imaginable standard of rectitude. If they succeed at this, they could
crush all real research on the subject.

Stuart Jordan's article in Skeptical Inquirer (Sep-Oct 2009) reported
that, of the 700-odd "scientists" cited as denying global warming in
the US Senate Republicans' report, only 10% had any peer-reviewed
publications in climatology. 80% had no peer-reviewed publications in
any related field. Weather reporters were listed as meteorologists.
Will the authors of this report, or the senators who sponsored it, be
held to the standard that their supporters want to apply to the
Climate Research Unit?

Rather than being the first to demand that climate scientists be
utterly spotless, we should demand the same standards of honesty be
applied to climate scientists and denialists alike, and perhaps
politicians as well. These standards can be as strict as people would
like, as long as they apply to all.

Copyright (c) 2009 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are
permitted provided this notice is preserved.